The issue
of rationality in society. Max Weber's idea
of an all-embracing rationality, and instead emphasize that each life area had its own distinct rationality. By this rationality the cardinal values
of the language-produced life areas could be constructed: Critical terms
of knowledge, riches, order, beauty, sacredness, and virtue. Thereby the division
of labor between the creators, preservers, conveyors and receivers
of each cardinal value could also be elaborated. Talcott Parsons and Edward Shils (1951. As scholars and translators they had delved deeply into Weber’s work. In opposition to Weber, they assumed that the whole
of society and its various subgroups were systems.
They identified four elements that eventually became known as "AGIL" as constituent elements
of all parts
of society as well as
of society as a whole.
The “A” stands for adaptation. It is the focus
of any economic organization. The “G” stands for goal attainment. This is the focus
of the political organization
of societies. The “I” stands for integration
of economic, political and other relatively independent societal units into a whole that can maintain its boundaries. The “L” stands for latency, the maintenance
of the patterns
of a society and its parts. The latter they located in the expressive symbolism
of society such as religious ritual, art, recreation, and in the adherence to common values. According to Parsons and Shils, all four, A, G, I, and L, enter into any and all concrete social phenomena in various forms and proportions. The total society has its AGIL and so does all its parts. For example, a household has its A in the form
of earning money and buying essentials
of housing, food, and clothing. Its G appears in the form
of its rules for childrearing and decisions about common property. The I in the household takes the form
of fences and admission restrictions for outsiders and strangers. Its L takes the form
of an honored name and family rituals.
Unlike Weber's terms, AGIL are more than abstract names
of actions or clusters
of actions. AGIL is a system, and “A”, “G”, “I”, and “L” are thus assumed to be interrelated in predictable ways.
To say that AGIL is a system with all the properties
of a system is not an innocent proposition that can be accepted in advance
of proof. There is danger in borrowing the concept “system” from biological science and engineering. The danger was once identified when social science borrowed the term “force” from physics (Zetterberg 1965, pp 38-40)
We all heard the term deficits do not matter and whom it was. Correlation to creative destruction to fiat endogeniety we already covered in the forums. The inertia is lightning quick movement
of Capital and labor from the bent
of mind
of many. Guises already we know about in the circle on the Hill as we are.
http://www.stern.nyu.edu/Newsroom/NewsR ... CON_024937 <------------ forum readers know this connection on the Hill
http://www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscent ... 021008.ppt
Distilled further we have this.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/new ... theory.asp
To backwardation to premise unravels to this effect warning, and yes I read the book and passed it on.
http://dir.salon.com/books/review/2004/07/21/peterson/
The next step back is no random walk in the bent
of mind to the control burn I mention earlier.
Joseph Schumpeter, particularly in his book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, first published in 1942. In it, Schumpeter popularized and used the term to describe the process
of transformation that accompanies radical innovation. In Schumpeter's vision
of capitalism, innovative entry by entrepreneurs was the force that sustained long-term economic growth, even as it destroyed the value
of established companies and laborers that enjoyed some degree
of monopoly power derived from previous technological, organizational, regulatory, and economic paradigms. Schumpeter also elaborated the concept, making it central to his economic theory. The most likely source can be found in his 1939 book Business Cycles. Here the Western world first learned about Nikolai Kondratieff and his long-wave cycle. These cycles, Schumpeter believed, were caused by innovations.
Today as we are In the earlier work
of Marx, however, the idea
of creative destruction or annihilation (German: Vernichtung) implies not only that capitalism destroys and reconfigures previous economic orders, but also that it must ceaselessly devalue existing wealth (whether through war, dereliction, or regular and periodic economic crises) in order to clear the ground for the creation
of new wealth.
As we know who said never let a crisis go to waste.
Vin "
This hording of cash and low money multiplier is like the tide going out before a tsunami hits. It should not make you happy and comfortable."I hope this clarify's a few
of my thought to the control burn I mentioned previously in the forums. I convey to being unbraided given a poor effort on my part to clarify a contextual thought in a hectic World and its current levity to what they are choosing as policy I convey. Will they print, yea i think they will as there effort as conveyed a control burn as history conveys. I just work for a Company that finds solutions.
http://generationaldynamics.com/forum/v ... 3630#p9206
Nothing new under the Sun.
http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf
Carl Johan Ljungberg, 1997. Vårt land: den svenska socialstaten, City University Press, Stockholm.
